1
Syllabus design for multilingual competence
Todor Shopov, Sofia University
(Sofijski Universitet Sv. Kliment Ohridski)
The present paper explores one aspect of communicative syllabus design related to
developing learners’ multilingual competence. The continuum of language competence can be
defined by its two extreme ends of native-speaker proficiency (high acceptability) and
intercomprehension (minimum general receptive skills). It includes many “interlanguage” points of
communicative competence for example the CEF common reference levels of language proficiency
and partial language proficiency (Fig. 1).
Native-speaker proficiency
↨
C2
↨
C1
↨
B2
↨
B1
↨
A2
↨
A1
↨
Partial competence
↨
Intercomprehension proficiency.
Figure 1: The continuum of language competence
At present, there is sufficiently strong research-based consensus that mastery of three
European languages (1 + 2) facilitates individuals’ receptive language behaviour in situations where
an unfamiliar language is used, provided useful intercomprehension strategies are applied and
appropriate positive attitude is adopted. Now educators know that learners need intercomprehension
strategies and attitude change. These should become new elements of the model of communicative
competence as defined for example in the CEF. If schools adopt a constructivist approach, they will
be able to design and implement language syllabi for the teaching of all points of the continuum of
language competence.
2
The term curriculum has been in English usage for a long time. In German, it was
substituted for the term Plan and later in the eighteenth century, for the term Lehrplan.
“Curriculum” comes from Latin and means “a running, course, race”. The noun is related to the
verb “currere” which means, “to run”. A standard English dictionary defines “curriculum” in the
following way: “all of the courses, collectively, offered in a school, college, etc. or in a particular
subject” (Webster’s New World Dictionary 1988). As is seen from the definition, the term is
commonly used in two related senses. It refers to (a) a programme of study at an educational
institution or system and (b) content in a particular subject or course of studies. In the latter sense,
“curriculum” is synonymous with the British term “syllabus”. In fact, the use of the two terms in
Europe and North America has caused a great deal of confusion in second language teaching.
Within the framework of the Tempus Scheme of the Commission of the European Communities,
DG XXII – Education, Training and Youth, the following definitions for the terms, curriculum,
course and syllabus are used. Curriculum is the totality of an organised learning experience; it
provides the conceptual structure and a set time frame to acquire a recognisable degree, and
describes its overall content, e.g. the curriculum of a five-year degree programme in “Mechanical
Engineering” at a certain higher education institution. Course is the totality of an organised learning
experience in a precisely defined area, e.g. the course on “Fluid Dynamics” within the curriculum
“Mechanical Engineering”. Syllabus is the prescription of details on a specific course, such as what
will be learnt (and when) the texts to be read, the areas in which expertise is expected to be
demonstrated.
We need to establish a clear distinction between the terms. Here is a definition by J. P. B.
Allen, which is adequate to our purposes: “curriculum is a very general concept which involves
considerations of the whole complex of philosophical, social and administrative factors which
contribute to the planning of an educational programme; syllabus, on the other hand, refers to that
subpart of curriculum which is concerned with a specification of what units will be taught”.
Here, we are interested in the educational aspects of curriculum design and development.
But let us consider an example from recent history of education first. The so-called Siman Act,
Nebraska Legislature, U.S.A., April 1919 stated: “No person shall … teach any subject to any
person in any language other than the English language. Languages other than the English language
may be taught as language only after a pupil shall have … passed the eighth grade”. The case of
Meyer versus State of Nebraska was based on the Siman Act. Robert T. Meyer was arrested for
teaching German to a ten-year-old boy in Nebraska on 25 May 1920. His case reached the U.S.
Supreme Court, which ruled on 4 June 1923 that anti-foreign-language laws were in violation of the
14th Amendment of the Constitution. The majority decision stated, “No emergency has arisen which
renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify
its inhibition”.
3
This and many other examples indicate that modern foreign languages and all other
disciplines for that matter as school subjects should not be taken for granted. In relation to that,
John Clark (1987) asks several important questions: “whether to include languages other than the
mother tongue in the school curriculum; which languages to include; to whom to teach them and for
how long; what objectives to seek to achieve”. The answers, according to him, should be sought in
the particular educational value system of society at a particular moment in time. Bednar et al.
(1992, 19) propose that “Instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of
learning and/or cognition; effective design is possible only if the developer has developed reflexive
awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design”.
Constructivism is a theory of learning and instruction that “emphasizes the real-world
complexity and ill-structuredness of many knowledge domains” (Spiro et al. 1992, 57).
Constructivist view of cognition contends that learning is a process of personal interpretation of
experience and construction of knowledge. Constructivists adopt the notion of Wittgenstein that
context is an integral part of meaning. “Learning is an active process in which meaning is
developed on the basis of experience”. (Bednar et al. 1992, 21) Constructivism is an alternative
epistemological perspective to objectivism.
Constructivism in language education has been explored extensively. Seppo Tella and his
colleagues at the Media Education Centre, University of Helsinki relate constructivism to the
concept of dialogism: “dialogue is a crucial element in the creation of any language organization
and especially in establishing an open multimedia based collaborative and networked learning
environment. It suggests that the learning environment in the framework of dialogism cannot be a
physical space, a classroom, or any particular media education tool. The learning environment is a
dialogue”. (Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen 1998, 103) Various ingredients are needed to promote
dialogic education, e.g. presence, unanticipated consequences, otherness, vulnerability, mutual
implication, temporal flow, authenticity, etc. (Op. cit. 117) Theory of constructivism has been
developing and new versions have been emerging. Neo-constructivists of the cognitive school
believe that “(a) understandings are constructed by using prior knowledge to go beyond the
information given; and (b) the prior knowledge that is brought to bear is itself constructed, rather
than retrieved from memory, on a case-by-case basis” (Spiro et al. 1992, 64). Social constructivists
focus on social interaction in the community as a source of knowledge.
Jim Cummins (1994, 48) describes the pedagogical and social assumptions underlying
educator role definitions in language teaching (Figure 2a and Figure 2b). He distinguishes the
objectivist from the constructivist positions in methodology (the transmission versus critical
orientation) and in sociology (the social control versus social transformation orientation). Cummins
concludes, “Educators’ role definitions reflect their vision of society, and implicated in that societal
vision are their own identities and those of the students with whom they interact. The outcome of
4
this process for both educator and student can be described in terms of empowerment.
Empowerment can thus be regarded as the collaborative creation of power insofar as it constitutes
the process whereby students and educators collaboratively create knowledge and identity through
action focused on personal and social transformation” (Op. cit., 55).
Transmission Orientation:
Language – Decomposed,
Knowledge – Inert,
Learning – Hierarchical internalization from simple to complex.
Critical Orientation:
Language – Meaningful,
Knowledge – Catalytic,
Learning – Joint interactive construction through critical inquiry within the zone of proximal
development.
Figure 2a: Educator Pedagogical Assumptions (Cummins 1994, 48)
Social Control Orientation:
Curricular Topics – Neutralized with respect to societal power relations,
Student Outcomes – Compliant and uncritical.
Social Transformation Orientation:
Curricular Topics – Focussed on issues relevant to societal power relations,
Student Outcomes – Empowered, critical.
Figure 2b: Educator Social Assumptions (Cummins 1994, 48)
Nicholas Burbules (1997, 8) maintains that teaching “is not a process of conversion, but of
translation: of making sufficient associations between the familiar and the foreign to allow the
learner to make further associations, to find other paths, and eventually to become a translator, a
path-maker, on their own. Learning how to ask a good question is in one sense the central task, yet
one that is almost never taught explicitly, and rarely taught at all.”
As a final point, the implications for language curriculum design seem quite straightforward.
One is that content cannot be predetermined. Perhaps learning objectives cannot be pre-specified
either. The curriculum developer cannot define the boundaries of what may be relevant. All he or
she can do is plan authentic, real-world tasks, which will provide the necessary and sufficient
contexts for the learners to realize their objectives and construct their knowledge. This can be
achieved by providing a collaborative learning environment based on communicative interaction
containing sufficient comprehensible language input and output.
In the early seventies, Anthony Howatt (1974) stated, “Special courses have fairly specific
objectives and are rather simpler to discuss. General courses tend to be diffuse in their aims and
take their overall shape more from tradition, contemporary fashion and the vague but powerful
influences exerted by the social attitudes and economic needs of the community”. In fact, the
distinction is embedded in the objectivist tradition of language teaching. It is best expressed by
William Mackey (1965) in his famous claim that there is no language teaching without “selection,
5
gradation, presentation and repetition” of teaching contents. In that period, criteria like frequency,
coverage and availability were applied in the process of choosing common everyday language for
“communicative syllabi”. In addition, the notion of “appropriate language” was used as a criterion
of usefulness. The organization of the course was based on a priori decisions on the order in which
“new teaching points should come” and on “how much to teach”. The method of needs
identification was developed by a Swiss scholar, Rene Richterich (Richterich & Chancerel 1977).
British linguists elaborated the theory and methodology of language needs analysis and curriculum
design. Language courses for specific purposes (e.g. English for Specific Purposes or “ESP”) were
represented by their proponents as an alternative to general courses.
The English in Focus series of “specialist English materials for students who use English as
the medium of instruction for the subject they are studying” was published in England in the
seventies (e.g. Allen & Widdowson 1994). The authors wrote, “The series assumes that students
have already completed a basic course in English and that they have some knowledge of their
specialist subject. This course is therefore intended for students […] who already know how to
handle the common English sentence patterns and who need to learn how these sentences are used
in scientific writing to convey information…” (Op. cit.). The course had a great success because the
approach adopted was new.
Peter Strevens outlined the “new orientations in the teaching of English” and of any
language for that matter in the mid-seventies. Some ten years earlier, he had published one of the
most successful audio-lingual textbooks (English 901). The times had changed though. Strevens
argued, “Broadly defined, ESP courses are those in which the aims and the content are determined,
principally or wholly, not by criteria of general education (as when ‘English’ is a foreign language
subject in school) but by functional and practical English language requirements of the learner”
(Strevens 1977, 90). This was certainly new a quarter of a century ago but today I find the
conjecture rather misleading.
It seems to me, at this junction, that the methodological opposition of “general purposes” to
“specific purposes” in language teaching is inadequate and inappropriate. I do not think that “the
aims and the content are determined” a priori by any criteria. They cannot be precompiled or prepackaged. Two arguments supporting this strong claim can be found in the literature. One refers to
the fact that language teaching is a complex process characterized by network of relationships in a
social and cultural context and the other to the idea that language teaching is an ill-structured
knowledge domain. I believe that a holistic approach, which emphasizes the priority of the whole
over its parts, can solve the problem of curriculum design.
In that respect, an improvement on the theory of curriculum design has been offered by
Rand Spiro and his colleagues at the University of Illinois in their theory of Random Access
Instruction (Spiro et al. 1992).
6
Random Access Instruction is a theory, which accounts for the complexity of the process of
language learning and the ill-structuredness of the domain of language knowledge and/or
proficiency. Eve Sweetser and Gilles Fauconnier (1996) maintain that “The initially overwhelming
complexity of linguistic usages is, then, not an independent and autonomous complexity. It is a
reflection of the complex – and economically interrelated – structure of cognition”. Eric Lenneberg
sees language proficiency as a process of “(a) extracting relations from (or computing relations in)
the physical environment, and (b) of relating these relationships” (Lenneberg 1975, 17).
Continuous, not discrete, cognitive and physiological processes produce those relationships.
Lenneberg argues persuasively that “These deeper continuities [the continuous cognitive and
physiological processes] are reflected in the “fuzzy” nature of semantic, syntactic and phonological
categories, making sharp, formal distinctions and decisions difficult” (Op. cit., 17). He concludes
that “everything in language is of relational nature and what has to be learnt in language acquisition
is how to relate or how to compute a relationship upon given physical data” (Op. cit., 32).
Constructivists hold that “Characteristics of ill-structuredness found in most knowledge
domains (especially when knowledge application is considered) lead to serious obstacles to the
attainment of advanced learning goals (such as the mastery of conceptual complexity and the ability
to independently use instructed knowledge in new situations that differ from the conditions of initial
instruction). These obstacles can be overcome by shifting from a constructive orientation that
emphasizes the retrieval from memory of intact pre-existing knowledge to an alternative
constructivist stance which stresses the flexible reassembling of pre-existing knowledge to
adaptively fit the needs of a new situation. Instruction based on this new constructivist orientation
can promote the development of cognitive flexibility using theory-based hypertext systems that
themselves possess characteristics of flexibility that mirror those desired for the learner” (Spiro et
al. 1992, 59).
Complex and ill-structured domains have two properties: “(a) each case or example of
knowledge application typically involves the simultaneous interactive involvement of multiple,
wide-application conceptual structures (multiple schemas, perspectives, organizational principles
and so on), each of which is individually complex (i.e. the domain involves concept- and casecomplexity); and (b) the pattern of conceptual incidence and interaction varies substantially across
cases nominally of the same type (i.e. the domain involves across-case irregularity)” (Spiro et al.
1992, 60). For example, basic grammar is well structured, while the process of applying grammar
rules in real-world communication is ill structured.
Random Access Instruction can be represented by the metaphor of a rhizome, spreading in
all directions. It was first used by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in the book On the Line as a
method of organizing information (quoted in Burbules 1997). Seppo Tella uses it to describe open
learning environments based on a communal educational value system. He maintains that “it
7
[rhizome] transmits the idea of something growing, something developing, yet it gives ample scope
for individual action and decision-making” and suggests that “a rhizome is a rhizome is a
rhizome…” (Tella et al. 1998, 132). Nicholas Burbules (1997, 3) holds that “Each particular step or
link within a rhizomatic whole can be conceived as a line between two points, but the overall
pattern is not linear, because there is no beginning and end, no centre and periphery, to be traced”.
Random Access Instruction is a rhizomatic system. It can be applied in the design of
nonlinear learning environments.
What is “knowledge” and what does “knowledge strategy” mean? Tella maintains that
knowledge is to be “understood as mental information structures modified by the individual on the
basis of thinking and earlier knowledge” (Tella et al. 1998, 26). Clearly, knowledge is not simply
data and information. Knowledge strategy is the “long-term methodical reflection […], which finds
concrete expression as operational procedures or tactical measures, slogans, goals, forms of
operation, working methods arising from discussion about values, and evaluation measures
connected with them”(Op. cit., 25).
The Knowledge Strategic Hypertext (KSH) is a nonlinear and non-sequential language
curriculum model based on constructivist epistemology and the idea of knowledge strategy (Figure
3). The term model is employed here somewhat loosely. It is a way to make clear how our
hypothesis hangs together to make a coherent explanation. As far as the components of the KSH are
concerned, their number is unlimited. That reflects the complexity and ill-structuredness of the
language proficiency domain. In such a nonlinear and non-sequential learning environment, each
element is related to all other elements. The KSH is a network model, which allows the user to
move from node to node following the links between them. Nodes store linguistic, etc., information
and links represent semantic associations between the nodes. Learning is seen as a process that
modifies the information structures in specified ways under specified conditions. The semantic
nature of the links in the KSH forms the basis of the model. This is supported by scientific research,
which has shown that the mind holds memories semantically, according to meaning.
The model accommodates two conditions for learning, which are necessary and sufficient.
The first is the automatic processing passively invoked by the incoming data. And the second is the
active control of the incoming data. Thus, the KSH can predict what parts of the input would be
accepted and what would be tuned out. The constructive process leads the user “beyond the
information given” (Perkins 1992) by reconstructing information itself.
Figure 3 presents the KSH language curriculum model including communicative language
competence, language activities, domains, etc. It was developed under the LAC 2000 Project
(Shopov 1999). The model contains components derived from the definition of language behaviour
in Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment: A Common European Framework of
8
Reference (CEF). It is publicly accessible on the web-site http://culture.coe.fr/lang. The CEF
provides:
“(a) A descriptive scheme, presenting and exemplifying the parameters and categories needed to
describe, first, what a language user has to do in order to communicate in its situational context,
then the role of the texts, which carry the message from producer to receiver, then the underlying
competences, which enable a language user to perform acts of communication, and finally the
strategies, which enable the language user to bring those competences to bear in action;
(b) A survey of the approaches to language learning and teaching, providing options for users to
consider in relation to their existing practice;
(c) A set of scales for describing proficiency in language use, both globally and in relation to the
categories of the descriptive scheme at a series of levels;
(d) A discussion of the issues raised for curricular design in different educational contexts, with
particular reference to the development of plurilingualism in the learner” (Trim 1999, 9).
In the CEF, the general competences of the individual are defined by “the knowledge, skills
and existential competence (savoir-être) he or she possesses, and the ability to learn”. Three
components constitute communicative language competence. They are the linguistic component, the
socio-linguistic component and the pragmatic component. Language activities are the actual
behaviours in which language is used. They are reception, production, interaction or mediation (in
particular interpreting or translating) in oral or written form, or both. The domains, in which
activities are contextualized, are the public domain, the personal domain, the educational domain
and the occupational domain. Tasks, strategies and texts complete this model of language use and
learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Starting level of L2 proficiency ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personal
domain
Pragmati
c
compone
nt
Receptio
n
Sociolin
guistic
compon
ent
Educatio
nal
domain
Linguisti
c
compon
ent
9
Producti
on
Empty
because
model is
open
Public
domain
Interacti
on
Occupati
onal
domain
Mediatio
n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Starting level of L2 proficiency ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Figure 3: The KSH curriculum model, including the nodes and links of communicative
language competence, language activities, domains, etc. (Pencheva and Shopov 2000)This is
obviously a comprehensive and exhaustive model. However, with its 18 elements in 7 categories, it
is a complex one. The combinations produce an infinite number of concrete instances of language
use. Therefore, in my opinion, only a KSH approach to curriculum design can guarantee quality in
second language development.
The model proposed is based on the idea of whole language development. The KSH
includes language styles and registers incorporating them into “a form of metalinguistic,
interlinguistic or so to speak ‘hyperlinguistic’ awareness” (CEF, 97). This leads to a better
perception of what is general and what is specific concerning the linguistic organization of the
target language. So each component of the model may become the starting point for the use of the
KSH.
The Intercomprehension Analysis Hypothesis claims that the teaching and learning of
modern foreign languages can be made effective by developing intercomprehension proficiency.
The practical applications of Intercomprehension Analysis will be referred to as Applied
Intercomprehension research and development. In fact, Franz-Joseph Meißner has established the
“didactics of multilingualism” (Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik) as an independent discipline
(http://www.uni-giessen.de/~gb1041/institutpersonen/meissner ). So I consider all issues related to
the teaching, studying and learning of Intercomprehension as belonging to the field of Applied
Intercomprehension. For example, the studies of the methods of raising language learner’s
10
Intercomprehension awareness can be regarded as types of applied research (for example, the ILTE
project deems awareness-raising as “the most essential facet of Intercomprehension”). In the same
way, the studies of developing plurilinguistic competencies and strategies, of reactivating existing
knowledge in the language classroom, and of plurilinguistic education in general are elements of
Applied Intercomprehension.
In summary, the theoretical findings and the description of the Intercomprehension
phenomenon need to be rendered into a new teaching and learning paradigm, that is, a specific
methodology should be designed including syllabus design for multilingual competence. Moreover,
language teacher training (pre-service and in-service) should take a new orientation. I think that
Applied Intercomprehension is to undertake those somewhat Olympian tasks. Let me support this
claim with a popular educational vision.
“Whatever the style, there are ample opportunities to orient instruction toward higher levels
of understanding, introduce and exercise languages of thinking, cultivate intellectual passions, seek
out integrative mental images, foster learning to learn and teach for transfer. The smart school
makes the most of these opportunities. It informs and energizes teaching by giving teachers time
and support to learn about the opportunities and by arranging curriculum, assessment and
scheduling to encourage tapping them.” (Perkins 1992, 130)
References
Allen, J. P. B. and H. G. Widdowson (1973 – 1977) English in Focus, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bednar, Anne, D. Cunningham, T. M. Duffy and J. D. Perry (1992) Theory into Practice:
How Do We Link? In Duffy and Jonassen 1992.
Burbules, Nicholas (1997) Aporia: Webs, Passages, Getting Lost, and Learning to Go On,
Website http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/PES/97_docs/burbules.html.
Clark, John L. (1987) Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cummins, Jim (1994) Knowledge, Power and Identity in Teaching English as a Second
Language, In Genesee 1994.
Duffy, Thomas M. and David H. Jonassen (1992) Constructivism and the Technology of
Instruction: A Conversation, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Howatt, Anthony (1984) A History of English Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lenneberg, E. (1975) The Concept of Language Differentiation, In Lenneberg and
Lenneberg 1975.
Pencheva, M. and T. Shopov (2000) Whole Language, Whole Person, Viseu: Passagem
Editores.
Perkins, David (1992) Smart Schools, New York: The Free Press.
Richterich, R. and J.L. Chancerel (1977) Identifying the Needs of Adults Learning a Foreign
Language, Strasbourg: CCC/Council of Europe.
Spiro, R. J., P. J. Feltovich, M. J. Jacobson and R. L. Coulson (1992) Cognitive Flexibility,
Constructivism and Hypertext; Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in
Ill-Structured Domains, In Duffy and Jonassen 1992.
11
Strevens, Peter (1977) New Orientations in the Teaching of English, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sweetser, Eve and Gilles Fauconnier (1996) Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Tella, Seppo and Marja Mononen-Aaltonen (1998) Developing Dialogic Communication
Culture in Media Education: Integrating Dialogism and Technology, ME Publications 7, Helsinki:
University of Helsinki.
Trim, John L. M. (1999) Common tools to promote linguistic and cultural diversity, respect,
tolerance and understanding in Europe, Babylonia, 1, Council of Europe.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1988) New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
12
Abstract
The paper explores one aspect of communicative syllabus design related to developing
learners’ multilingual competence. This is essential if European schools plan to educate plurilingual
individuals communicating in multilingual communities. Here the focus is on partial competence
for intercomprehension/multilingual comprehension. A syllabus model is offered – the knowledge
strategic hypertext syllabus. It is based on constructivist learning theory, allowing learners to
develop their multilingual competence by using appropriate knowledge strategies (selecting
appropriate learning contents).
The continuum of language competence can be defined by its two extreme ends of nativespeaker proficiency (high acceptability) and intercomprehension (minimum general receptive
skills). It includes many “interlanguage” points of communicative competence for example the CEF
common reference levels of language proficiency and partial language proficiency:
Native-speaker proficiency ↔ C2 ↔ C1 ↔ B2 ↔ B1 ↔ A2 ↔ A1 ↔ Partial
competence ↔ Intercomprehension proficiency.
There is at present sufficiently strong research-based consensus that mastery of three
European languages (1 + 2) facilitates individuals’ receptive language behaviour in situations where
an unfamiliar language is used, provided useful intercomprehension strategies are applied and
appropriate positive attitude is adopted. Now educators know that learners need intercomprehension
strategies and attitude change. These should become new elements of the model of communicative
competence as defined for example in the CEF. If schools adopt a constructivist approach, they will
be able to design and implement language syllabi for the teaching of all points of the continuum of
language competence.
Keywords. syllabus, multilingual competence, intercomprehension, knowledge strategy,
constructivism.